- How do the expectations of sex and gender contribute to conflict? Identify and discuss ways that men and women tend to differ in their approach to conflict. What role does relationship type or satisfaction play in these differences? Finally, do you agree that popular culture exaggerates these tendencies? Why or why not? Make sure to justify your reasoning as fully as possible.
- Imagine that a “truth serum” existed that, when administered, would make everyone tell the pure, unedited truth in all situations. Discuss the pros and cons of such a product. (Are there times in which lying is necessary/acceptable? Or should it be abolished entirely?) Finish with a conclusion in which you either support or condemn the truth serum. Support your decision.
Sample Solution
eneralizability, which is otherwise lacking, and result in better preventive efforts that would best fit the needs of those involved, and eventually reduce rates of IPV. Conceptual Issues According to Hamby, a majority of studies fall victim to misconceptualization due to âhyperspecialization.â This is the idea that behaviors of IPV, most specifically noted by Hamby, violent behaviors, can be isolated and studied (Hamby, 2014, p. 151). Her biggest critique of this is that most researchers will use outdated scales, like the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), that have not been advanced or undergone maintenance since they first surfaced. As a result, researchers may be measuring similar behaviors like bullying, community violence, or family violence that score similarly to IPV behaviors on self-report scales. Hamby considers a wide range of violent acts in the form of sexual assault, aggravated and simple assault, robbery, homicide, and intimate partner homicide in evidence against gender symmetric patterns of IPV. She goes on to conclude that individual rates of these violent acts are most perpetrated by men and that these findings should not be ignored when assessing patterns of IPV across gender. She suggests rather than using default measures, a progressive approach would be to look at gender patterns across different forms of violence to further evaluate a more practical relationship of gender disparity in IPV and thus, this information should be incorporated for future works in the conceptualization of IPV (p. 152). As we see in the five additional articles, deficient conceptualization may be an overarching problem across literature. The overall questions and theories that drive the studies that examine behaviors of IPV are grounded in similarities, though specific theories are not present in more than one study examined in this review. In other words, all five of the studies under examination analyzed different aspects and theories behind IPV, which in turn, reveals this field to be expansive in nature. There appears to be consensus that IPV includes both violent physical and mental abuse, resulting in injurious outcomes for those involved. Most of the research questions evaluated in the five additional studies pertain to the contributing factors and possible predictors of IPV behaviors to attempt to better explain the direction and patterns of these relationships across gender. To begin, Edwards, Mattingly, Dixon, and Banyard (2014) introduced the social disorganization theory to explain IPV in their study. The social disorganization framework is meant to pro>
eneralizability, which is otherwise lacking, and result in better preventive efforts that would best fit the needs of those involved, and eventually reduce rates of IPV. Conceptual Issues According to Hamby, a majority of studies fall victim to misconceptualization due to âhyperspecialization.â This is the idea that behaviors of IPV, most specifically noted by Hamby, violent behaviors, can be isolated and studied (Hamby, 2014, p. 151). Her biggest critique of this is that most researchers will use outdated scales, like the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), that have not been advanced or undergone maintenance since they first surfaced. As a result, researchers may be measuring similar behaviors like bullying, community violence, or family violence that score similarly to IPV behaviors on self-report scales. Hamby considers a wide range of violent acts in the form of sexual assault, aggravated and simple assault, robbery, homicide, and intimate partner homicide in evidence against gender symmetric patterns of IPV. She goes on to conclude that individual rates of these violent acts are most perpetrated by men and that these findings should not be ignored when assessing patterns of IPV across gender. She suggests rather than using default measures, a progressive approach would be to look at gender patterns across different forms of violence to further evaluate a more practical relationship of gender disparity in IPV and thus, this information should be incorporated for future works in the conceptualization of IPV (p. 152). As we see in the five additional articles, deficient conceptualization may be an overarching problem across literature. The overall questions and theories that drive the studies that examine behaviors of IPV are grounded in similarities, though specific theories are not present in more than one study examined in this review. In other words, all five of the studies under examination analyzed different aspects and theories behind IPV, which in turn, reveals this field to be expansive in nature. There appears to be consensus that IPV includes both violent physical and mental abuse, resulting in injurious outcomes for those involved. Most of the research questions evaluated in the five additional studies pertain to the contributing factors and possible predictors of IPV behaviors to attempt to better explain the direction and patterns of these relationships across gender. To begin, Edwards, Mattingly, Dixon, and Banyard (2014) introduced the social disorganization theory to explain IPV in their study. The social disorganization framework is meant to pro>
